A call to reconsider Dimples move We...

A call to reconsider Dimples move

We live on Niagara Street nearest to Olive Avenue. I feel that we

will be the ones most affected by the relocation of Dimples.

With only 39 parking spaces and the capability of holding 200

people in their building, it’s obvious to me -- or anyone -- that the

overflow of traffic will be pouring out onto my street along with

other nearby streets.

Dimples customers, most likely under the influence, will be

darting across Olive Avenue to get to and from the karaoke bar. There

is no crosswalk anywhere near that would make it safe to cross. How

can you allow people to be put at risk like that?

It’s my understanding that CCI Digital rents parking space at the

Chadney’s location during the day. Will they be down our streets,

too, during the day, once they lose their day parking there? Will the

one-hour parking signs on our street stop them? I don’t think so!

They just come out every hour or so and move their cars one or two

spots.

This happened with the business, West Productions, across the

street. The only days you see the parking violation officers around

here is on street-sweeping days. So these parking signs won’t stop

them from parking on our streets. You have to realize how this

relocation of Dimples is going to affect our neighborhood in many

negative ways beyond more than just the obvious.

My primary concern is to continue to feel safe and secure at home,

just as I have in the past 16 years while living here. I won’t be

able to do this anymore as long as Dimples is across the street. I

will be worrying each and every night that this will be the night

that something goes wrong. A drug arrest, sexual activities going on

in or out of a nearby car, drinking alcohol in cars, urinating at or

around our property, loud, obnoxious, discourteous people who have

lost all respect after coming out of a karaoke bar at 2 a.m. are

significant disrupting activities.

I don’t like how Dimples and their supporters minimize the

seriousness of these instances. Maybe this all seems minimal to them,

but to us, we have to live with it each and every day. It must be

somewhat of a concern knowing that they are required to have a number

of security bouncers. Sounds like they expect trouble, to me. If you

are calling this a restaurant, then why don’t other “family

restaurants” have security bouncers?

I worry for the safety of my children, my husband and myself,

friends, family, neighbors and our children’s friends who enjoy

visiting.

I am asking for you to please reconsider allowing Dimples to move

to the old Chadney’s location. As it is now, we have enough issues to

deal with. For example, there are: the not-enough-parking issues,

cars racing down the alley, loud, intoxicated people arguing, people

breaking Dick Clark Productions windows and setting off alarms for

entertainment. We ask the city to help us with the existing issues

instead of causing more for us. Place Dimples in a location where it

won’t disrupt people and neighborhoods’ lives. I truly believe there

are many other choices in this city of Burbank. It doesn’t need to be

right here.

LAURA JACKSON

Burbank

‘Wi-Fi’ story is

not connecting

Wireless Internet access Downtown is another bad idea. But they’ve

spent the money, and now it has a life of its own, and a cheering

section.

It seems that today’s politics call for identifying some group (in

this case people wandering around Downtown Burbank with portable

computers) with whom a politician wants to curry favor. Develop a

service or product that costs money (taxpayers’ money) and give it

away, thereby creating a constituency that turns it into a voting

bloc. Then get the Burbank Leader to handle your public relations

press releases.

Ask for opinions from the people who developed and/or benefit from

the project. Of course, they gush about how wonderful it is. Accept

no negative opinions or viewpoints.

Quote someone with a contemporary, youthful, “hip” idiom and

you’re rolling. The fact that the subject involves high-tech is more

sex appeal.

Finally, conclude that it must be good because everyone agrees it

is. Suggest a future expansion is being considered.

Just don’t ask any hard questions about the costs or the why. You

write about it being funded for a total cost of $49,365. (No mention

that all of these entities get their funding from taxpayers,

involuntarily.) The article states “ ... So far, people can get

wireless Internet access near City Hall on Olive Avenue ...”

So, what’s the cost when it expands?

How much is the total cost (for fixed items) when all of Downtown

(or wherever) is covered? How much is the monthly cost to run this

thing? How many users will it support?

I won’t even get into the issues about which websites will have to

be blocked (in case children use it) or what “politically correct”

rules will apply to language or protection from hackers, etc., etc.

In no time at all, we’ll have a commission with a staff at City Hall

developing policy.

But finally, why? Why does the city want to go into a business (a

money-losing business) and offer a service to private parties

(businesses and individuals downtown) for free, by spending tax

dollars? Do we need to subsidize people who want to be online in

Downtown Burbank? Next year the city will be crying about having to

cut this or that, or about how broke the city is and needs new taxes,

blah, blah, blah. We’ll wonder where the money went.

This is what one gets from the government. It’s not their money.

They don’t care. The failure of the Burbank Leader to do any real

reporting and ask hard questions reveals its true audience, purpose

and role.

BRIAN VUOLO

Glendale